ss_blog_claim=beb8d77763a778df008fbeb5e1dae37f

Left And Right Politics

…plus the cream in the center.

In a previous post I wrote about how Congress voted not to keep the ethanol subsidies going. A program that needed assistance when it first started, but now has grown enough to support itself without the taxpayer’s money. Six billion dollars was given to the ethanol industry each year. Congress decided to allow the subsidy to expire to help cut the budget. A plan that when you really look at it, was another political ploy to help the politicians look like their doing their job and following what the American taxpayer wants.

In 2007 President G.W. Bush signed into law a bill that would require oil company refineries to add ethanol into fuel in the United States. So ending the subsidies will not harm the industry when it comes to losing business and causing the ethanol industry to go out of business. In the end, the government has still help pick a winner within the energy industry.

What does that mean for other commodities within the US? Nothing. Corn prices will continue to be within the same range as it has been, as well as other commodities like beef and poultry. Ethanol consumes approximately 25% of the corn grown in the United States. On top of it all, it doesn’t even produce the energy it consumes to create it.

So why is it still being used within the US? I really can’t answer that since I don’t know what is going on behind closed doors in Washington.

This week has been quite interesting after the Iowa primary. Mitt Romney beats Rick Santorum by a mere 8 points in the final count. Ron Paul Takes the third position and will receive 6 delegates just as Mitt and Rick have done. What I found interesting was the fact that Santorum won most of the counties but still came in second. Looking here at the final results in the Iowa Caucus, you can see for yourself that Romney only won seventeen counties, while Santorum took sixty-two. As for the other candidates, Ron Paul won eighteen counties and Rick Perry was only able to grab two. The other three major candidates, Jon Huntsman, Newt Gingrinch and Michele Bachmann were not able to win any counties.

Wednesday morning Michele Bachmann announced that she will be pulling out of the race for president after the people of Iowa have spoken. She states in here speech that it would be wiser to rally around the candidate that the people and the Republican party choose. It’s typical for at least one candidate to drop out after the Iowa primary. At the same time, Rick Perry went back to Texas to “reassess” his campaign for president. After a fifth place finish in the Iowa caucus, Perry is wondering if he’ll have any real chance to rise back from it. It’s most likely he will not be in the race after the New Hampshire Primary. Which is fine with me and many others that feel that he was not a strong enough candidate in the first place.

Next week is the New Hampshire primary. Typically the two primaries are a month apart, but since Florida had moved up their primary to January 31, New Hampshire had no choice but to move their date up as well. During the primaries, all the states have agree to hold their caucus’ at certain times and in a certain order (please don’t ask me how it works, I’ve never care too much to look into it so please Google it if you do care).

We will see how the boys(I can say that now) will do next week in New Hampshire and after they have spoken, then we’ll see who will be packing up and going home. My prediction is that Perry will be gone and Gingrinch will be on the ropes with weak knees. I wouldn’t mind if both of them went home together and stopped the madness of trying to be president. Neither one of them are the type of candidate this country needs at this time.

Tags: , , , ,

Libertarian (Libertarianism) Shirt for Men & Women High Quality T-Shirt

Our Libertarian shirt helps make everyone around you feel at ease and pushes the absolutely wonderful idea that everyone has the right to do what they want and be who they want to be as long as those decisions don’t infringe on the freedoms of anyone else.These ideas, along with this shirt, specifically aid in supporting all the hundreds of thousands of people all accross the globe that are being persecuted because their lifestyles differ from what their society deems ‘morally acce (more…)

Tags: , , , , , ,

For those of you that have been on vacation or just busy with your family, friends or your career, you may not have heard that Obama took the time out of his busy schedule on New Year’s Eve to sign the National Defense Authorization Act, also know as NDAA. What does that mean? It sounds good and that it would be something that us Americans would want for the security of the nation.

The problem with that is the fact that it has violated the U.S. Constitution, especially the fourth amendment. While the bill originated in the House of Representatives with good intentions of protecting the American people (I rather say person), the bill has had things added to it and altered to where now the freedom and liberties of the American person in question.

This new law now authorizes the military to indefinitely detain any person being suspected as a terrorist. the law allows the President to use “all necessary and appropriate force” to detain any person, including US citizens, who “was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces, under the law of war until the end of hostilities”

Obama stated a few weeks ago that he would veto the bill if it was brought to him because of certain provisions in the bill. After the bill was “altered” as to not remove any powers from the President, he didn’t seem to have a problem with it. In a written statement,Obama wrote: “The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists… My Administration will aggressively seek to mitigate those concerns through the design of implementation procedures and other authorities available to me as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future, and will seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Administration throughout my time in office.”

In my opinion, why would he sign a bill into law if there were provisions he and his administration want to change or remove? While I do understand that the military funding was due to expire on January 2nd, but that didn’t mean that Congress needed to right this entire bill. It wasn’t like they didn’t know there was new military funding bill that needed to be voted on by the end of 2011.

Now many have thought that the Patriot Act went too far into infringing on our freedoms and liberties, but this takes it to a whole new level. Even many of Obama’s supporter are not happy with his decision to sign this bill. The ACLU are one of them. “President Obama’s action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law,” said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director. “The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield.”

Even those in the security division of our government feel that this is a clear violation of the Constitution The Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the FBI and the head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division have all said that the indefinite detention provisions in the NDAA are harmful and counterproductive.

William S. Sessions, a man who has served as FBI director under three Presidents, Reagan, Bush and Clinton, wrote in a letter to members of the conference committee working on the NDAA that the detention provisions “could pose a genuine threat to our national security and would represent a sweeping and unnecessary departure from our constitutional tradition.”

The Senate voted 38-60 on November 29th to reject an amendment to the NDAA that would have removed provisions authorizing detention without charge. The amendment offered by Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), would have replaced those provisions with a requirement for an orderly congressional review of detention power. (Jurist, Jan. 1; WP, ACLU, Atlantic Wire, Dec. 31; NLG, Dec. 27; Constitution Project, Dec. 9; ACLU, Dec. 5; ACLU, Nov. 29)

For those of you who may not be aware of it, but none of this information is being spoken about on the main stream media outlets. They’ve made it a point to steer clear of the topic. So please share this with everyone you know.

Tags: , , , ,

Ads